Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

PrincessMommy

Do Princesses get to be "private" in public spaces?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, SKL said:

The camera was not "directly in her face" and he wasn't even taking her photo.

The camera was most definitely right in her face. 

(Note to mods: this is a link, not an upload)

[Sorry, deleted it anyway because it's better to be safe than sorry with Susan's reputation/legal stuff/you get the idea.]

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another linked photo showing her interacting with fans while someone takes her photo with no issues. This whole "photo-gate" thing is total BS manufactured by tabloids to make her look bad.

[Ditto]

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corraleno,  

 Look closely at the second photo you've linked.  I don't think the guy climbed up any stairs at all.  He looks like the same man who is sitting in the small section of seats directly below the section where the Duchess is sitting.  He's wearing a dark shirt with a green and white striped sweater or something tied on...isn't he the same man who is also shown sitting next to the woman crossing her legs?  To me, it looks like he just stood up and turned around to take the photo.

 '

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Complaints about "taxpayers having to foot the bill" for extravagant renovations to Frogmore Cottage are also bogus. The renovations were paid for out of the Queen's annual Sovereign Grant. Yes the Sovereign Grant comes from taxes, but the money spent at Frogmore came out of the Queen's own budget and did not cost taxpayers a dime in additional funds. Frogmore was already earmarked for renovation before the Sussexes decided to move there, because it was "seriously dilapidated," having been previously converted from a family home into dormitory-style staff accommodations, and it needed all new plumbing, wiring, windows, a new roof, and various other repairs. It's a Grade II Listed building, so all renovations must be in keeping with the original look and design of the building, which makes renovations expensive. All interior decor, furniture, appliances, curtains, etc., were paid for privately by Harry and Meghan.

They were living in a small 2-bedroom cottage on the grounds of Kensington Palace, and now they have a 5-bedroom home (owned by the British Crown, not them) in which to raise their family. William and Kate have in a 21-room apartment at Kensington Palace, renovated at a cost of £4.5 million, and a 10-bedroom Georgian mansion in Norfolk with a tennis court and swimming pool that was renovated at a cost of £1.5 million. Where's the outrage about that?

Why are Meghan and Harry portrayed as lazy, greedy leeches on the taxpaying public when they live in much smaller and less expensive accommodations, while doing just as many public engagements, as William and Kate? 

 

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Laurie said:

Corraleno,  

 Look closely at the second photo you've linked.  I don't think the guy climbed up any stairs at all.  He looks like the same man who is sitting in the small section of seats directly below the section where the Duchess is sitting.  He's wearing a dark shirt with a green and white striped sweater or something tied on...isn't he the same man who is also shown sitting next to the woman crossing her legs?  To me, it looks like he just stood up and turned around to take the photo.

Yes, you're right, I stand corrected. When I looked for additional photos of that part of the stands, it does appear to be the same guy, so I edited my post. I can still see why security would have thought he was too close to Meghan and was taking her photo, though — the camera was aimed right at her face from a few feet away. As far as I know, that guy wasn't even offended and wasn't the one who made a big issue out of it, it was the woman who wrote the tabloid article who claimed Meghan was "demanding" that no one be allowed to take her photo, when there's no evidence that she made any demands or that her security guy even spoke to more than those 2 people. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the royal women need to recommence carrying fans to hide behind.

Tabloids make up nastiness because that's what sells, and I'm glad their new digs got renovated. Someone should do the same with the buildings of parliament before they fall down. That's a heck of a job. Maybe even the queen would have to save up for that. But maybe it'd be seen as inappropriate for the queen to pay for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Corraleno said:

Public engagements in 2018:

William 220
Harry 193
Meghan 96
Kate 87

Please explain why Meghan and Harry are criticized for "wanting the perks of royal life without any of the tiring bits" when they are in fact working just as hard as William and Kate. Note that Meghan wasn't even a member of the family for the first 5 months of the year, and she was pregnant for the last 4 months! 

 

kate had a baby in 2018 - she was on maternity leave. 

5 hours ago, Corraleno said:

But neither she nor the security guard said that no one could take photos of her. 

 neither person was taking a picture of her.  and depending upon the angle - appearances about distance and position can be extremely deceiving.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

kate had a baby in 2018 - she was on maternity leave. 

So in the 6 months or so that Kate was not on maternity leave in 2018, she did 87 public engagements, and in the 7 months that Megan was a member of the royal family (including 3 months when she was pregnant), she did 96. She did an additional 26 before they were married. Are those not comparable numbers? Do you think those numbers justify the claim that Kate is a diligent, hard-working royal, while Meghan is just a lazy social-climber who wants the perks of royalty without doing any of the work?

 

22 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

neither person was taking a picture of her.  and depending upon the angle - appearances about distance and position can be extremely deceiving.

What's really deceiving is the fact that this entire "scandal" is based on a single report — with absolutely no corroboration — by a woman who has managed to spin the fact that a security guard may have asked a guy, who seemed to have a camera aimed at Meghan's face from a few feet away, not to take a picture, into a tabloid story about out-of-control Meghan's diva demands that no one was allowed to take any photos of her during a public appearance at Wimbledon. And then every other tabloid in the UK and the US, and many other sources, picked up and ran with the story despite the fact that she can clearly be seen in another photo interacting with fans and allowing herself to be photographed. 

If you google this story you'll find that every single report leads back to one of two sources: Sally Jones and her buddy Piers Morgan who interviewed her on ITV and ranted that Meghan should "go back to America."  He has had a vendetta against Meghan since he tried to date her and she ghosted him after one date because she met Harry at a party the night after she had drinks with Morgan. He has been relentless and cruel in his attempts to brand her a liar, a fake, and a social climber who is out to "destroy the monarchy." 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the kind of vindictive BS Piers Morgan spews about Meghan and Harry: “They could easily have afforded to pay for all these renovations themselves rather than for just a few fittings and fixtures, particularly as the Queen gifted them the actual property, but they didn’t want to. Instead they wanted to make cash-strapped nurses, teachers, soldiers and police officers pay for large chunks of the expense.”

It's not their house! They don't own it and never will. They can't sell it any more than the Queen can sell off Windsor Castle. And the renovations were not paid for by the "cash-strapped" working poor, they were paid for by the Queen out of the annual budget she gets that is specifically earmarked for the renovation, maintenance, and upkeep of Crown properties. Why should they be expected to pay for extensive structural repairs to a 200 year old property they've never owned, and never will? As members of the royal family they're allowed to live in Crown property, just like every other member of the family, including William & Kate, Charles & Camilla, Anne, Andrew, Edward & Sophie, Beatrice, Eugenie & her husband, and multiple cousins of the Queen. So why are Meghan and Harry singled out?

When William & Kate moved into their 20-room apartment at Kensington Palace, the renovations cost £4.5 million, paid for from the same funds that paid for the renovations at Frogmore Cottage. Why wasn't Piers ranting about how entitled and selfish William and Kate were for forcing poor nurses and teachers to pay for the renovations on "their" home instead of paying for it themselves? 🙄

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TCB said:

Yes it does! You're hating on them for hating on her. I don't know what the truth is about Meghan. I don't suppose any of us really do.

Shame on me for asking for links and expecting people to back up their vitriol with something other than ugly rumored gossip.

What terrible standards I have.🙄

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FTR the report I saw said the selfie guy was about 5 feet away - which is IMO a comfortable distance from anyone in a public place designed to pack in crowds of thousands.  In the photo you can see that there is at least one row of empty seats between selfie guy and the duchess.  If you've ever been in a stadium, you must have had people taking photos much closer than that.

I don't give a dang about the cottage etc etc.  I'm surprised at the passion on both sides of this argument.  The duchess was brought up in a privileged lifestyle and continues in a different privileged lifestyle.  Like anyone in that position, she has haters whose criticisms are stupid, wrong, and vicious.  None of this should surprise anybody.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Corraleno said:

 

If you google this story you'll find that every single report leads back to one of two sources: Sally Jones and her buddy Piers Morgan who interviewed her on ITV and ranted that Meghan should "go back to America."  He has had a vendetta against Meghan since he tried to date her and she ghosted him after one date because she met Harry at a party the night after she had drinks with Morgan. He has been relentless and cruel in his attempts to brand her a liar, a fake, and a social climber who is out to "destroy the monarchy." 

Piers Morgan does seem to come a bit unglued.  Not sure what backlash he's getting over in the UK, but if that happened with a US situation, the rest of the media would have a field day with that kind of talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Piers Morgan is an a$$hat in general.  You'll get no disagreement from me on that.  He is all about manufacturing drama.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

So what happened to all of the people who were supposed to be in those seats at or is it typical that many were empty? 

There were actually lots of empty seats there, not just in the area around Meghan. The All England Lawn Tennis Club said they were not aware if the Palace or anyone else had requested that specific block of seats, and stated that it was completely false that anyone had been prevented from taking their seats in that area. Here's a photo from Wimbledon the day after Meghan visited, and you can see large sections of empty seats which had nothing to do with her!

Piers Morgan's unhinged rant claiming she was sitting in the Royal Box, and therefore purposely attracting attention and then demanding privacy, is false (like pretty much everything else that comes out of his mouth). She was not in the Royal Box at Centre Court, she was in regular seats at Court 1, and she was not there as a representative of the royal family, she was there to watch her BFF Serena Williams, and after the match she left the stands to visit Serena.

The crowd at Wimbledon the day after Meghan was there. (Note to mods: there are no celebrities or even identifiable faces in this image, which comes from a public video provided directly by Wimbledon.)

621855900_ScreenShot2019-07-11at1_01_47PM.thumb.png.848829b0e923e8b89825f1f823cc17a3.png

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I read she was in an area set aside for guests of the players.  (My google fu on this topic isn't working to find a link.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meghan hates Trump, which is a good enough reason for me to admire the woman for her ability to read a person. Piers has always been a turd. Many people dislike her because she’s biracial, divorced and a celebrity. Many more don’t agree with the whole royal way of living. Way too many just like to read trashy articles and bitch about things.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SKL said:

FTR the report I saw said the selfie guy was about 5 feet away - which is IMO a comfortable distance from anyone in a public place designed to pack in crowds of thousands.  In the photo you can see that there is at least one row of empty seats between selfie guy and the duchess.  If you've ever been in a stadium, you must have had people taking photos much closer than that.

I don't give a dang about the cottage etc etc.  I'm surprised at the passion on both sides of this argument The duchess was brought up in a privileged lifestyle and continues in a different privileged lifestyle.  Like anyone in that position, she has haters whose criticisms are stupid, wrong, and vicious.  None of this should surprise anybody.

Me too.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm late to the question, but I think a big part of the problem is that everyone now takes cell phone photos constantly.

It's one thing to be a public person, and have some photographers shoot a picture of you at the tennis match, which goes back and they print an ok one in the paper.  It's totally another to have people doing it constantly so there are hundreds of them and some jerk posts a photo of you picking your wedgie out of your butt on Instagram.

It's not a reasonable request of people, it's not healthy for them and it isn't healthy for the watchers either.  These arrangements of public personas only work if we recognise certain boundaries.  Which we no longer do.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The public contract has changed.  It used to be that almost the only ones taking pictures at events were press and the press was circumspect about which pictures they published.  Now, everyone has a camera in their pocket and the press seems to go out of their way to print pictures that might embarass famous people and anyone with an smartphone can publish pictures to a worldwide platform that are unkind or out of context.  

Also, I don't know much about her but it's my understanding that she is a brand new mom.  Postpartum depression is real and common.  I'm not going to dissect her character because she asked for no photos.  It's unkind for anyone to attack someone for being potentially overwhelmed in this mix of circumstances.  

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish Mom were alive so I could ask her how Princess Grace of Monaco was treated after leaving Hollywood and marrying a royal. Smaller country, probably more control of the press back then, and, well, that would be last on my list to discuss with Mom, actually!

I am reminded of a clip I saw years ago of Sly Stallone doing press for a movie he did w/ Dolly Parton. (They both probably would like to pretend it never happened, lol.) Sly said how Dolly had schooled him on the importance of being kind to the fans. I think he was acting above giving autographs and she said she's always give them b/c her fans made her. It was sweet. 

I see both sides of wanting privacy and fame. Throw in royals living off the others' taxes and it's a more sensitive subject. All I know is that I'm so glad I'm not famous. I would like to try being wealthy, though!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2019 at 9:35 PM, Corraleno said:

But she didn't apply for a job, she accepted a marriage proposal from the man she loves. There is a huge difference between knowing that your marriage comes with certain public duties, and that it means having to live within certain constraints, and realizing that you are going to be publicly shredded on a daily basis by people who hate you for no reason. People have written the most VILE things about her, about her family, about her looks, about her clothes, about pretty much everything she does and says. People totally rip her apart and then act offended that she doesn't want to make herself even more vulnerable, be even more available to the public, share even more information, give up even more of the little privacy she has. That's a hell of a price to pay just to be with the person you love. 

I am talking about the fact that she was an actress in the first place. One does not go in to that profession if being in the public eye is a problem for them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Janeway said:

I am talking about the fact that she was an actress in the first place. One does not go in to that profession if being in the public eye is a problem for them.

 

But that isn't necessarily true.  There are plenty of known celebrities who manage to keep their private lives private.  And there are plenty who love acting and go into the profession because they enjoy the art but then choose to leave it or spiral out of control because they were not prepared for what fame entails.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought of  this thread today when I read an article about MM getting mom shamed over the way she was holding her baby.  Good grief people go find something real to complain about.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I thought of  this thread today when I read an article about MM getting mom shamed over the way she was holding her baby.  Good grief people go find something real to complain about.

That’s what I mean - in the aggregate it seems like a never ending stream of nitpicking.  So it’s not enough that she went out with him and to a charity game with her SIL, now she isn’t holding him right.  WTH?

Like a new mom needs a guilt trip from the Internet for something so trivial?

Edited by Arctic Mama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Arctic Mama said:

That’s what I mean - in the aggregate it seems like a never ending stream of nitpicking.  So it’s not enough that she went out with him and to a charity game with her SIL, now she isn’t holding him right.  WTH?

Like a new mom needs a guilt trip from the Internet for something so trivial?

I know right.  I found it so shocking and remembering my days as a new mom I know it would sting even if I do know that people are stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

I thought of  this thread today when I read an article about MM getting mom shamed over the way she was holding her baby.  Good grief people go find something real to complain about.

 

I saw that and just thought it wasn't even worth mentioning because I assumed the people who already think she's out seeking attention would either dismiss it or see it as attention seeking that she brought the baby out in that manner so soon after the Wimbledon thing.  She can't win.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...